Stephen Harper’s former advisor, and now accused fraudster, Bruce Carson, wrote a book. And as Colby Cosh noted, historians are forever grateful to those with nothing to lose. So while the Conservatives and NDP gripe about Carson’s current status, we have stories on how Harper wanted to move Jim Flaherty to industry in 2007 but he refused to go, and that Harper backed down because he didn’t want to lose him. We have a story on how Harper gave advice to Jack Layton in the 2008 election about trying to “bury” Stéphane Dion, and how Harper had Ambrose so busy doing other things when she was environment minister that she couldn’t pay attention to her actual file. And here’s a story on how Harper briefly thought he might have to step aside while the Cadman affair (remember that?) was in full swing, before being disabused of that notion by his staff. Could make for interesting reading.
Tag Archives: Lobbying
Roundup: Day of the many leaks
It was a day of leaks yesterday – first a plan to try to “disrupt” the Liberal convention and undermine Trudeau, which seemed a bit foolish and costly, given that their “agents” would have to purchase convention memberships for the purpose of lame buttons and Trudeau-branded rolling papers. (The Liberals, meanwhile, say the attention is flattering). And while that one looked deliberately leaked to the media, the following other leaks weren’t. A 70-page re-election strategy was next to make its way to the Toronto Star, which talks a lot about leveraging Laureen Harper to help put a human face on the government, while totally ignoring Thomas Mulcair in the strategy. And if that wasn’t enough, it was then revealed that the PM’s former chief of staff, Guy Giorno, will be the party’s new legal advisor. Paul Wells notes that even though the party has often ”leaked” false memos in the past this does appear that they have an unintended leaker in their ranks.
Roundup: The tale of the second cheque
Boom! The ClusterDuff exploded yet again yesterday, with yet more revelations from Senator Mike Duffy, who took advantage of what could be his final days of the protection of parliamentary privilege, and laid out yet more accusations against the PMO. This after a morning where Stephen Harper took to the radio waves and declared that Nigel Wright had been fired, in direct contradiction to all previous assertions that Wright resigned. So while the Commons fixated on this contradiction, Senator Duffy took the floor in the Senate, and detonated his next bomb – that there was not one cheque, but two, and that the talk of an RBC loan was actually a script from the PMO that he had been made to deliver. That second cheque was from the Conservative party lawyer, Arthur Hamilton, which paid for Duffy’s legal fees – and this time, he provided documents to prove it. The party doesn’t deny covering the legal expenses, saying that they will sometimes pay the legal fees of their caucus members. This is likely an indication, according to John Geddes, that the party was still keen to defend him and by extension their decision to appoint him as a PEI senator, with their particular reading of those rules. While Duffy contended that there remains a whole other email chain in the hands of his lawyers that he wants to see turned over to the RCMP, though an envelope was later handed to the CBC which appeared to cast some doubt as to Duffy’s version of events – or at the very least was a good trial run as to his scripting around where the money came from. If there is one bright side to all of this it’s the level of engagement that the public is demonstrating, and the fact that senators are pointing to the number of emails they are receiving from people who want to see due process – and one senator that I spoke with this afternoon brought this up without prompting. And while these senators have zero sympathy for their three embattled peers, they at least want to ensure that there is process followed.
Roundup: Bringing back the euthanasia debate
Before his death by a brain tumour, famous Canadian microbiologist Dr. Donald Low recorded a video making a plea for assisted suicide laws in this country, but feared that we still don’t have the political maturity to handle such a conversation. The video was released yesterday to great play in the media, for what it was worth. Sadly, I fear Low was right after the last attempt at such a debate in Parliament, and it’s one of those issues that MPs are too afraid to touch and will inevitably fob off on the Supreme Court to give them a push before they do anything with it. Only one Conservative MP, Steven Fletcher – a quadriplegic – seems to want to have that discussion, and supports the notion, given his particular perspective.
Roundup: Affirming our constitutional monarch
It should come as little surprise that in a constitutional monarchy that an oath to the monarch was considered to be constitutional by the courts. No, seriously. This was an actual court challenge. But reading over the judgement, there are some very good things in there – things like the fact that the Queen is the embodiment of the country and its laws so swearing an oath to either instead would really still be an oath to the Queen, just indirectly. It affirmed that the Canadian Crown is a separate institution from its UK counterpart, which is an important concept that many people forget. It gave a thorough trashing of the false notion that the Canadian monarchy is a foreign imposition, but rather that because of our particular evolution as a country leading up to the constitutional patriation in 1982, the monarchy is an expression of a modern and equality-protecting Canadian democracy. It also points to the value of loyal opposition, and that nothing stops them from advocating for republicanism once they’re citizens. It’s a fantastic judgement and an affirmation of the values of a constitutional monarchy, which is what these three non-citizens are seeking to be a part of after all. Pretending that you can take the Queen out of that equation is more than a little ridiculous.
QP: They’re not cuts, they’re changes
With Members’ Statements getting rowdy before Question Period even started, Speaker Scheer warned, “let’s not have this again.” And really, we didn’t. QP was fairly listless overall. Thomas Mulcair started out reading a question on the $10 billion in cuts to Old Age Security, to which Harper said that no, there were no cuts but changes coming in 2023. Mulcair moved onto the topic of the Parliamentary Budget Officer not getting the information he requested, to which Harper responded that they wrote the Act that created the position, and they report that information to Parliament. Megan Leslie was up next wondering why it was that the FAQ page on about the Navigational Waters Act was pulled down from the government’s website, to which Lebel said that they were fixing “erroneous information” about that Act on the site. Down the memory hole it goes (excepting of course for Google cache and the Library and Archives Canada backup copy). Bob Rae was up next, asking if the changes to OAS were really worth it considering the negligible percentage of money that it affected, but Harper insisted it was all about future sustainability. For his final question, Rae asked why the government wasn’t prosecuting some HSBC tax evasion cases, to which Harper insisted that they don’t tolerate that behaviour, and that CRA was investigating.
QP: We learned from the AG’s report…
The drinking game of the day could have been “We learned today in the Auditor General’s report…” Because for about the first half of QP, nearly every question was prefaced by that statement. Thomas Mulcair started off by reading off a question about cyber-security from the report, who which Harper insisted the report said that they were making progress, and then a pair of questions on the hidden costs of cuts to OAS, which Harper insisted was a misnomer because there were not cuts – just changes coming down the road. Peggy Nash asked a pair of questions about changes to the labour code, to which Tony Clement first gave a bland non-answer about respecting taxpayers and fair changes, before Lisa Raitt answered the supplemental about how these changes gave clear deadlines for payments for employees where they didn’t exist previously. Bob Rae was then up, asking a pair of questions relating to the AG’s report, wondering why our Cyber-security response centre couldn’t be staffed 24/7, to which Harper insisted that they were making investments in cyber-security and had accepted the Auditor General’s recommendations. For his final question, Rae asked about the Correctional Investigator’s report on the skyrocketing number of aboriginal women in prisons, but Harper’s response wasn’t terribly edifying.
Roundup: Petronas fallout
In the fallout over the rejection of the Petrnoas deal, Stephen Harper stands behind Paradis, yet still insists we’re open for foreign investment. Economist Stephen Gordon calls bullshit on some of the excuses for turning down deals like Petronas. Andrew Coyne calls for the “net benefit” test to be abolished.
The Prime Minister of Jamaica visited Ottawa yesterday, to celebrate 50 years of friendship and our opening a Canadian Forces supply base in the country to serve the region. When asked about Jamaica’s plans to abolish their monarchy, Simpson said that while she loves and respects the Queen, and Jamaica will always be a member of the Commonwealth, she feels its part of her country’s evolution.
Roundup: Laundering future abuses of power
After pushing through new legislation that gives him extraordinary powers to determine who can be barred from entering the country, immigration minister Jason Kenney now says he’ll let a parliamentary committee determine the guidelines around it. Instead of, you know, putting limits in the legislation in the first place so that he’s not vested with so much arbitrary power in the first place. Also, it launders any potential political fallout when the powers are abused, because he gets to say “the committee set those limits, not me.”
The rebranding of the Canadian Museum of Civilization means it is now the Canadian Museum of History, which will be more of a unified history museum, which we don’t really have here in the Nation’s Capital. It won’t be another war museum, and no, the minister can’t exert curatorial influence. Part of this idea of networking smaller museums around the country is one where they can share artefacts between them for focused exhibits, which is great – assuming, of course, that they have the budgets to transport these artefacts around the country.
QP: Clawbacks and disincentives
Thomas Mulcair led off QP by wondering if the Prime Minister was in agreement with Peter Van Loan’s characterisation the day before that EI was a disincentive for people to find work. Harper stuck to defending his record of job creation. Mulcair’s last question was the topic of his party’s opposition day motion on whether Harper would meet with the premiers. Harper said that he’d met or called premiers over 250 times. Peggy Nash was up next, and in light of Nexen’s shareholders agreeing to be bought out by CNOOC, wondered if the government was aware of CNOOC’s environmental and human rights record. Mike Lake responded by saying that the investment review process was sound and that the minister was taking a close look at this case. Denis Coderre was up for the Liberals, asking about those EI clawbacks. Diane Finley rose instead of Harper, despite it being the leaders’ round, and responded with the wise words “workers are better off when they work.” That’s, like, deep.